12 comments:

Anonymous
said...

The Germans sold off Chrysler at a huge loss, perhaps 20 cents on the dollar, to a private company headed by former Treasury Secretary John Snow. Their cars and trucks largely suck and many of their dealers are bandits. Yea, let's give them billions of dollars to continue that heritage.

If we ever go to war with China, I'm sure the Chinese will sell us the planes, tanks, and other vehicles to fight them with. We might even be able to buy them from MalWart instead of manufacturing them ourselves.

Seriously, if we loose all of our manufacturing base we are in deep trouble during a war.

But the powers that be, i.e, McConnell and Bunning, will hold the auto industry to a higher standard then they will the banking industry. Republicans always want to help Wall Street, but they don't give a damn about Main Street. The added attraction for them is that they see a way to put a hole in unions, too. The right is using this issue to assault labor unions - and their logic is truly flawed. The auto industry, per Brian Thomas on 550 KRC this morning, has lost 32,000 jobs since 2006 - and he blames the unions. Ok - Citibank has laid off 75000 people since October. I'm unaware of any major 'united citibank employees union' to blame for that loss of jobs. What's the next rationale from the right? Could it be simply that the economy is tanking? And that is a direct result of the economic malfeasance of the Bush Administration and those who've been in charge for the last 8 years. And I point directly to the failed 'trickle down' theory associated with those long standing tax cuts they assured us would help, not hurt, the economy. In other words, what other lies can the right wing talk show hosts come up with to attack labor?

If you want any credibility with me, call in those notes on that $700 Billion bailout passed a month ago.

What a wonderfully shallow analysis. I'd wager you can't even name the percentage of a car's cost attributable to labor without looking it up. Are the domestic automakers being undersold, or are they making a fleet that no one wants to buy?

I'd wager you can't even name the percentage of a car's cost attributable to labor without looking it up.

I'm sure you memorize auto industry statistics before you go to bed every night. Are you arguing that there is no difference between the production costs attributable to labor between the countries' two industries?

Are you arguing that there is no difference between the production costs attributable to labor between the countries' two industries?

Until know how much of the percentage in the cost of a car is attributable to labor, we don't know how meanful the difference is.

As for memorizing car statistics, if you have bothered to read the documents linked in the article to which you refer (specifically the Chrysler document), you would have notice that the difference between the 2005 and 2006 wages were $7.15/hr, while the difference in profit was +1.5B (as in billion) versus -1.1B. You think that came from the extra labor cost?

I have not studied how Perry came to his conclusions: I just reported them. But this is the third post I've seen today in which you have either argued against a point I (or in this case the original post) did not make, or have implied there is a contradiction in a fact and what was said when there was no contradiction.

The data Perry is reporting here is an absolute comparison. It has nothing to do with comparisons over time. This post said absolutely nothing--zero--about the relationship of wages to profits over time.

I have not studied how Perry came to his conclusions: I just reported them.

Perry's blog title is a warning that people need to verify things, yours is a statement that what you say is true. At least he is honest about his reliability.

But this is the third post I've seen today in which you have either argued against a point I (or in this case the original post) did not make, or have implied there is a contradiction in a fact and what was said when there was no contradiction.

Your claim was #2: The bailouts will reward inefficiency (see graph at the left). You have offered no evidence that the difference is labor cost is a measure of inefficiency, which is not offset by improved productivity. So, I pointed out that the labor costs did not prevent Chrysler from making billion-dollar profits earlier.

The data Perry is reporting here is an absolute comparison. It has nothing to do with comparisons over time. This post said absolutely nothing--zero--about the relationship of wages to profits over time.

It also had nothing to do with providing a cause for the troubles of the auto industry in Detroit, as the time-comparison helps to verify.

Since your point has nothing to do with the post, what is your point?

I'm sorry the connection was not spoon-fed to you. I'll try to bring it to your level next time.

Until know how much of the percentage in the cost of a car is attributable to labor, we don't know how meanful the difference is.

"Luria [a former UAW economist] has estimated that the work done in GM factories accounts only for 45 percent of the cost of one of its cars. For Ford, the percentage is 38 percent and for Chrysler it is 34 percent, he calculates." [New York Times News Service]

Do you think it is reasonable to believe that the productivity of American auto workers is 65 percent higher than workers for foreign auto companies?

Having worked in a union shop as well as a non-union shop for the same job, I can tell you that there was additional pressure by the other employees in the union shop to deliever quality, training provided by the union, a sense of additional pride, etc. I do not find it hard to believe that would translate in 65% additional productivity.

"Luria [a former UAW economist] has estimated that the work done in GM factories accounts only for 45 percent of the cost of one of its cars. For Ford, the percentage is 38 percent and for Chrysler it is 34 percent, he calculates." [New York Times News Service]

So, even when the labor costs are about the same, we see large variations in the amount of cost that adds to the final vehicles.

One more note:"Much of that gap represents the cost of higher pensions and health-care costs for retirees, according to the automakers." Living up to the promises you made to former workers can be difficult.